Yes, but … (treat this as a question, not as an argument)
Were there other Roman bishops who traced to other apostles?
Henry Beaufort, Cardinal of Rome, was accepted by Rome as being in apostolic succession.
We can acknowledge that his source of succession is not documented: it is, I think, rather harder to think that Rome thought he was part of a non-Roman succession, or that Rome thought the question of succession was not important at the time*. He’s from a church that is part of the Western European church and has Roman antecedents: what other source of transmission could he have shown at the time?
The Celtic church? The Celtic church was Roman in origin anyway, and their (undocumented) succession was just as good as the (undocumented) succession in the rest of the early Roman church, so perhaps their claim was just as good, but ??? by the time of Henry Beaufort hadn’t the English church ceased to recognize the Celtic succession ???
*Tertullian: “Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men”.
We don’t know who consecrated Henry Beaufort as a bishop, but at the time it was known and presumably when Rome accepted him as a bishop and made him a cardinal they harboured no doubts about the validity of his consecration as a bishop. So, yeah, it’s a racing certainty that he was consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by bishops . . . all of whom, going way back, were accepted as bishops by the Bishops of Rome. We just don’t know the names of those bishops, is all. Whereas, from Beaufort onwards, all the way to (say) Michael Curry, the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, we know the names of all the conscrating bishops all the way down.
But being recognised as a bishop in the Roman succession doesn’t mean that you are known or believed or assumed to have a lineage of consecrations that goes all the way back to a Bishop of Rome; just a lineage that goes all the way back to an apostle, but it could be any apostle. And there might in theory be no Bishop of Rome at any point in that lineage; that wouldn’t matter. It’s called the Roman succession because it’s recognised by the Bishops of Rome; not because it starts with them.
Rome has no difficulty accepting the authenticity and validity of the consecration of bishops in the Orthodox and Oriental churches. They’re not Catholic bishops because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But they are bishops because they have been consecrated in the apostolic succession - they have or are taken to a have a lineage of consecrations that goes back to an apostle. And presumably many or most of them would have a lineage that does not include a Bishop of Rome at any point.
In all likelihood, all or nearly all western bishops (includign the Anglicans) wiil have a lineage that featurs a pope at some point. But in terms of their authenticity or validity, that’s irrelevant. Apostolic succession requires a lineage back to an apostle, not back to a Bishop of Rome.