Supposedly Saint Thomas went to India and established the episcopacy and churches in India and the surrounding region/countries. Here is a fuller list (although I’m not completely sure past Georgia).
Rome: St. Peter and Paul
Constantinople: St. Andrew
Antioch: St. Peter
Alexandria: St. Mark
Jerusalem: St. James
Moscow: St. Andrew (through Constantinople)
Georgia: St. Andrew
Armenian Churches: St. Bartholemew and Jude
Spain: St. James the Greater?
Ukraine: St. Andrew
And the Eastern Orthodox view (which is largely similar to the Catholic view, excluding the Primacy of the Pope) is that the Apostolic succession (being bishop) is shared by all the bishops as through the Church. So a bishop’s succession is no different than the succession of another bishop. They all share in the same apostolic succession. So in Eastern Orthodox thought, even if someone may hold a historical place as a successor of St. Peter (Antioch for example), everyone can basically say they are successors of St. Peter since everyone shares in the same apostolic succession of the Church.
And in terms of historical apostolic succession (that someone can trace back their ordination to an apostle, although most likely not knowing which apostle) is basically guaranteed for the Assyrian, Catholic, Oriental, and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Anglican church as well, but I’ll get back to that later). All of these churches were united at least for a century past the Council of Nicaea.
When Christianity became legal, it’s no surprise some claimed to have apostolic succession to claim authority. Of course, others who are ordained may be ordained by a false bishop, and he may never know. And it’s difficult to ensure that someone’s claim to the episcopacy is legitimate. The Council decreed that when a bishop is ordained, there are two extra bishops who are also present to ensure that the ordination is valid assuming at least one of the three bishops have valid succession. If you do the math, it basically guarantees that all bishops have valid succession after several generations of bishops. In this regard, all of those apostolic churches may have Apostolic Succession historically.
However physically/historically someone may have valid apostolic succession but this does not guarantee that they actually are ordained. Catholic theology says that there are several requirements for valid sacraments, and intent is one of them. This is why even past the schisms, Catholicism maintains the validity of Orthodox sacraments for example. However, the Anglican Church was then decreed by Pope Leo XIII in the 1896 bull Apostolicae curae to no longer have valid apostolic succession because their intent of the sacrament has changed so much as to make the sacrament null (hence Catholic theology says the Anglican church currently no longer has apostolic succession, even if they have a historical succession from the apostles).
The Eastern Orthodox view however sees apostolic succession as sort of an extension of the church. However Orthodoxy do not have ideas such as an indelible mark (once a priest always a priest) from Catholicism. To schism off from the church may result in cutting off from the apostolic succession of the Church. This is why Orthodox officially do not say whether Catholics have valid sacraments/apostolic succession because they are no longer part of the Orthodox Church.
I probably rambled way too long, but hope this is helpful.
