Thomas Barfield claims that in Turko-Persia and the middle east, legitimacy to rule was gained essentially by the act of conquest itself, and that rebellions after the fact were just "quasi-ritual" tests of the conquerors military (and therefore governmental) competence. Is this true?

by Masaryk

I'm really more interested in the claim about rebellions. I'll quote the relevant passage (all coming from Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History, a paperback copy, pg 72-75 more or less).

"War was thus an effective way to gain and retain power because victor provided legitimacy. While conquered cities often rebelled after a conquest, this was less a challenge to the legitimacy of its government then a test of its staying power" (75).

mrhuggables

When you say "Turko-Persia", are you referring to all the various Persianate societies that came to dominate the Iranian Plateau, Anatolia, the Levant, and Hindustan in the Turko-Persian tradition?