It's quite the opposite. Since the end of monarchies we actually don't observe stable autocracies anymore. They used to last for millennia, now they don't even get to a century.
An autocracy is an idea but an autocrat is a human who cares about himself. Anyone capable of carrying the torch is seen as threat and gets exiled, imprisoned or killed. In the end it's scorched earth within the current elites so instead of succession you get revolution with say 40-50% chance. You may get the succession to work once, maybe two-three times if you're lucky, but that's it.
Now contrast it with a world where an autocrat doesn't actually need a successor and can run the country indefinitely.
Monarchies are autocratic, but I don't think it's fair to throw them in the same bucket as modern autocracies. They came in many flavours and shapes. Often they had some checks and balances and due to the ruler not fearing for loss of power, they often had the intention to actually invest in their country and make their peoples live better.
A modern autocracy has the incentive to keep the population dumb to stay existing. Old monarchies have the incentive to make their population more intelligent, so it has more power than the neighbor.
An autocracy is an idea but an autocrat is a human who cares about himself. Anyone capable of carrying the torch is seen as threat and gets exiled, imprisoned or killed. In the end it's scorched earth within the current elites so instead of succession you get revolution with say 40-50% chance. You may get the succession to work once, maybe two-three times if you're lucky, but that's it.
Now contrast it with a world where an autocrat doesn't actually need a successor and can run the country indefinitely.