If Markland does have spare bog iron then logically it would trade it. If they find the iron ore deposits and can get miners from Europe to emigrate to it that is a game changer. It gives them a serious export to Greenland and maybe Iceland as well as having colonists come from outside those...
1) The Norse were the sort of people who killed strangers just to see what colour their blood was. Assume eventual bad relationships with any natives.
2) If the Norse in Labrador had excess fish and seals (and I assume that you are talking about them) they are more likely to trade such stuff...
It is unlikely that the Norse will establish long term friendly relationship with natives of Labrador. After all they failed to do so in Greenland and Vinland.
Depends when the war starts. Ireland was on the brink of a civil war. If WW1 does not kick off until the autumn then the Irish civil war could break out before then. In that case no BEF in France before 1915.
Because they would remember how Germany turned out. You can campaign there but not hold it. However, all it takes is some Emperor to think it is a good idea at the time and they try it.
Unlike Germany or Syria I cannot see the threat shifting dynamically enough. In the case of the Germans there were migrations from farther east. In the case of Syria there was a switch to a more aggressive Persian empire.
In the case of Scotland though, yes the naives did get more aggressive...
Unlike the Romans the Medieval English conquered virtually all of Scotland yet they could not hold it for very long. Why? Because the hilly redoubts are too big to control without puttng hundreds of troops into them and they could not afford the supercastles to buy time.
You might be able to...
There is also all those islands for Irish/Scotti raiders to use as bases for hitting the mainland.
It is going to cost a fortune in gold to secure a Roman Scotland. There were 10,000 auxilaries on Hadrian's Wall and most of them were apparently moved to the Antonine Wall when that was in use...
It is unlikely that the Romans would have deployed enough ships to affect the Irish raiding Scotland. After all unlike the Saxon Shore fleet there was no fleet covering Wales so why are they going to build one in Scotland?
As for land forces, the west coast is so rugged that ships can easily...
Uniform as in Roman towns and Celtic countryside? As for the Irish raids they would have a field day with Roman Scotland with their ships outmanaeuvring any land patrols.
Roman Scotland would ahve been a text book example of Imperial overreach, especially given that Roman southern Scotland...
The biggest problem any power had in gaining control of Oregon at the time of the dispute is putting people whether colonists, troops or whatever on the ground. For the Americans and British there are just too many equally profitable options closer to home/eastern Canada to expend great effort...
Pretty much the same state of affairs that the British had in 1861 and the Trent Affair. Financially speaking Britain made more from investments than a diplomatic concession would have cost the country.
I am not saying that Britian would always back down though.
If you are sending large numbers of people by sea then it is going to be dangerous and expensive. Every ship has got to go via Cape Horn twice, unless you want to make every voyage a one way trip.
The HBC could tell American colonists to pound sand, but that does not mean that local factors...
RE a larger Russian Alaska. Alaska was of marginal value to Russia. It was just too far away from Moscow. You have to travel all the way across Russia before you are even close to it.
Re British Seattle. Same problem as the Americans had. The only sensible way to get there is by wagon train...
And the Atlantis was intercepted because the OKM ordered it to rendezvous with a U boat. The British intercepted the message and decyphered it so was able to send a cruiser to the area
On the other hand if you are intercepted by a cruiser you will be outgunned.
So we now have three missions...