University Of Nebraska Innovation, Development, And Engagement: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Which school is better for a PhD in CS or engineering, Rice University or Johns Hopkins (something related to medical engineering)?A. Both Rice and JHU have superb bioengineering graduate programs, with JHU earning the top rank on the US News survey. Rice holds the edge with its BRC | BioScience Research Collaborative, working closely with the adjacent world’s largest Texas Medical Center provides for unlimited opportunity to expand Rice’s global reach and build unparalleled teaching and research programs. Rather than choosing the institution, the PhD candidate should search for particular individuals in his/her field of research interest as potential advisor and mentor.BioScience Research Collaborative Institutes & CentersMedical Futures LabRice Shared Equipment Authority (SEA)Rice 360: Institute for Global Health TechnologiesKinder Institute for Urban ResearchThe Gulf Coast Consortia (GCC)The Institute of Biosciences and BioengineeringThe National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI)The Center for Space Medicine (CSM)Children's Environmental Health Initiative (CEHI) The Center for Theoretical Biological Physics (CTBP)Texas Medical Center - Leader in Collaborative Medicine and ResearchBiomedical Engineering / BioengineeringRanked in 2017, part of Best Engineering SchoolsBiomedical engineers and bioengineers apply their knowledge of life sciences and technology to solve problems that affect life on Earth. These are the top engineering schools for graduate biomedical / bioengineering degrees. Each school's score reflects its average rating on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding), based on a survey of academics at peer institutions.What is Biomedical Engineering?Deeply interdisciplinary, biomedical engineering applies modern approaches from the experimental life sciences in conjunction with theoretical and computational methods from engineering, mathematics and computer science to the solution of biomedical problems of fundamental importance, such as human health.Why Hopkins?Ranked as the nation’s top program by U.S. News & World Report, Johns Hopkins’ biomedical engineering department affords students the opportunity to work closely – from freshmen year on – with 33 primary faculty members who are world leaders in their respective fields, including medical imaging, computational biology, bioinformatics, imaging science, biomaterials, cell and tissue engineering and microsystems. Alongside these faculty members, students engage in top-level research at the School of Medicine. Working as part of design teams, students develop much-needed therapies and devices from concept to prototype, and some even commercialize their inventions. An industrial liaison office also fosters interaction between Hopkins biomedical engineering teams and industry, resulting in exciting collaboration and employment opportunities.Department of Biomedical EngineeringResearch Centers and ProgramsThe interdisciplinary nature of biomedical engineering has been a key factor in the establishment of a number of interdepartmental research programs, centers, and institutes at Johns Hopkins. All of these centers and programs provide comprehensive research opportunities.Related Centers & InstitutesApplied Physics LaboratoryCenter for Bioengineering Innovation and DesignCenter for Hearing and BalanceCenter for Imaging ScienceCenter for Magnetic Resonance Micro-ImagingInstitute for Computational MedicineMind Brain InstituteTransitional Tissue Engineering CenterSee all news storiesReversing the Loss of SightJamie Spangler joins BME facultyCBID designs automated mosquito trap to track ZikaLearning the science behind imaging devicesJohns Hopkins Coulter Translational PartnershipCenter for Bioengineering Innovation and DesignBME Design StudioIndustrial LiaisonBME EDGEPhD programFaculty directoryResearch LabsNewsletterJohns HopkinsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering720 Rutland AvenueBaltimore, MD 21205Rice University Department of BioengineeringThe Rice University Department of Bioengineering is a top-tier teaching and research institution with a faculty committed to excellence in education, interdisciplinary, basic and translational research. Key to our success as an international leader in bioengineering is capitalizing on Rice's location, which promotes the development of long-term strategic partnerships with experts in industry and academic and government institutions. Rice is situated in the midst of one of the largest, most diverse cities in the nation. Our neighbors include the Texas Medical Center (TMC) and its member institutions. The TMC, which is the largest medical center in the world, provides unlimited opportunity to expand our global reach and build unparalleled teaching and research programs that solve a broad spectrum of complex problems in science and medicine. There is also close association with NASA.Rice IBB | IBBOur distinguished faculty members have diverse research interests focused on establishing engineering principles and developing cutting-edge technologies to solve a host of life-science problems in:Biomaterials and Drug Delivery,Biomedical Imaging and Diagnostics,Cellular and Bimolecular Engineering,Computational and Theoretical Bioengineering,Systems and Synthetic Biology, andTissue Engineering and Biomechanics.Rice BIOE NewsThere are close industrial ties between Rice and Commercial Entities. There is continuing student recognition including numerous NSF fellowship awards.Rice University | Virtual ToursPeople SpotlightAmina A. QutubAssistant Professor of BioengineeringSystems Biology LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Biomedical Engineering,Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (2004-2009)Ph.D., Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley/San Francisco (2004)B.S., Chemical Engineering, cum laude, Rice University (1999)Qutub integrates integrates biological systems modeling theory and design to characterize hypoxic response signaling and neurovascular dynamics. »Antonios G. MikosLouis Calder Professor of Bioengineering, Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringDirector, Center for Excellence in Tissue EngineeringDirector, J.W. Cox Laboratory for Biomedical EngineeringMikos Research GroupPostdoctoral Fellow Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard Medical School (1990-1991)Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, Purdue University (1988)M.S.Ch.E., Chemical Engineering, Purdue University (1985)Dipl.ChE., Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (1983)Mikos’ research focuses on the synthesis, processing, and evaluation of new biomaterials for use as scaffolds for tissue engineering, as carriers for controlled drug delivery, and as non-viral vectors for gene therapy. »Bilal GhosnLecturerPostdoctoral Fellow, Bioengineering, University of Washington (2009-2013)Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin (2009)M.S., Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Louisiana State University (2004)B.S., Biological Engineering, Louisiana State University (2002)Bilal Ghosn is an instructor for several project-based laboratory modules and engineering courses for Rice's bioengineering program. »David Yu ZhangTed Law Jr. Assistant Professor of BioengineeringNucleic Acid Bioengineering Laboratory (NABLab)Postdoctoral Fellow, Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering,Harvard Medical School (2010-2013)Ph.D. Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology (2010)B.S. Biology, California Institute of Technology (2005)Zhang's research involves the systematic modeling and rational design of nucleic acids, engineering designer nucleic acid molecules that enable revolutionary in vitro diagnostics, in situ imaging, tissue engineering, transcription regulation, and materials scaffolding and modulation. »Eric RichardsonLecturerDirector, Global Medical Innovation (GMI) track in the Master of Bioengineering (M.B.E.) programPrincipal R&D Engineer, Medtronic (2011-2013)Senior R&D Engineer, Medtronic (2009-2011)Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota (2009)B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University (2005)Richardson brings valuable interdisciplinary industry experience in biomedical engineering research and product development to his role as lecturer. »Gang BaoFoyt Family Professor in BioengineeringDirector, Nanomedicine Center for Nucleoprotein MachinesCPRIT Scholar in Cancer ResearchLaboratory of Biomolecular Engineering and NanomedicinePostdoctoral Fellow, Materials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara (1988-1991)Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Lehigh University (1987)M.Sc., Applied Mathematics, Shandong University (1981)B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Shandong University (1976)Gang Bao is a pioneer in nanomedicine, molecular imaging, and the emerging area of genome editing. The nanoscale structures and devices engineered in his lab have broad-based applications in basic biological research and in the translation of nano-scale tools for disease diagnostics and treatment. »3 teams of Rice-UTHealth faculty win research grants to study children’s healthHerbert LevineHasselmann Professor of BioengineeringDirector, Center for Theoretical Biological Physics (CTBP)Director, SSPBCPRIT Scholar in Cancer ResearchPostdoctoral Research Fellow, Physics, Harvard University (1979-1982)Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University (1979)M.A., Physics, Princeton University (1977)B.S., Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1976)Herbert Levine examines the dynamics of non-equilibrium systems, both deterministic and stochastic, to explain and quantify the intricate processes that govern biological systems. He is a pioneer in using theory to expand experimental findings and in the development of well-parameterized computational models. »K. Jane Grande-AllenIsabel C. Cameron Professor of BioengineeringDirector, Institute of Biosciences and Bioengineering (IBB)Integrative Matrix Mechanics LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biomedical Engineering,Cleveland Clinic Foundation (1998-2000)Ph.D., Bioengineering, University of Washington (1998)B.A., with top honors, Mathematics and Biology, Transylvania University (1991)Grande-Allen’s research uses engineering analysis to understand and fight heart valve disease. »Rice Engineering LabAssociate Professor of BioengineeringAssociate Professor, Biochemistry and Cell BiologyTabor LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry,University of California, San Francisco (2006-2010)Ph.D., Molecular Biology, University of Texas (2006)B.A., Biology, University of Texas (2001)Jeff Tabor builds synthetic, genetic, control systems to engineer complex biological behaviors such as pattern formation and social interactions. This research is of interest to basic science and has broad biomedical and industrial applications. »Professor of Bioengineering, Rice UniversityLodwick T. Bolin Professor of Biochemistry,Baylor College of MedicineJianpeng Ma's LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Computational Biophysics, Harvard University (1996-2000)Ph.D., Chemistry, Boston University (1996)B.S., Physical Chemistry, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China (1985)Jianpeng Ma studies the relationship between structure and function in biological molecules through computational biophysics, structural biology and the development of mathematical algorithms for... »McDevitt Research Labs Rice UniversityJoel L. MoakeSenior Research Scientist andAssociate Director, J.W. Cox Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering, Rice UniversityProfessor of Medicine, Baylor College of MedicineMoake Laboratory in Hematological ResearchM.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (1967)B.A., Johns Hopkins University (1964)Dr. Joel Moake specializes in platelet function in blood. His lab focus on the molecular events associated with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) and hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS)- especially, the interaction between the adhesive multimeric protein, von Willebrand factor (VWF), and the VWFcleaving metalloprotease enzyme, ADAMTS-13. »Jordan S. MillerAssistant Professor of BioengineeringPostdoctoral Fellow, Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania (2008-2013)Ph.D., Bioengineering, Rice University (2008)B.S., Biology, minor in Biomedical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003)Physiologic Systems Engineering and Advanced Materials LaboratoryMiller's expertise in biomaterials and regenerative medicine combines synthetic chemistry, 3D printing, microfabrication, and molecular imaging to direct cultured human cells to form more complex organizations of living vessels and tissues. »Junghae SuhAssociate Professor in BioengineeringSynthetic Virology LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Laboratory of Genetics, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (2005-2007)Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (2004)B.S., Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999)Junghae Suh specializes in designing and investigating gene delivery vectors for various applications in biomedicine. Her Rice laboratory combines broad-based knowledge of protein engineering and molecular/cell biology to engineer the properties of naturally occurring viruses for the treatment of debilitating human diseases. »Ka-Yiu SanE.D. Butcher Professor of BioengineeringProfessor of Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringMetabolic Engineering and Systems Biotechnology LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (1984)Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (1984)M.S., Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (1981)B.S., Summa Cum Laude, Chemical Engineering, Rice University (1978)Ka-Yiu San applies various chemical and bioengineering processes to discover how biological systems, such as E. coli, can be manipulated and used as catalysts to create useful products. »Z. Maria OdenFull Teaching Professor, BioengineeringDirector, Oshman Engineering Design KitchenPostdoctoral Fellow, Harvard Medical School (1994-1997)Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University (1994)M.S., Biomedical Engineering,Tulane University (1991)B.S.E., Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University (1989)As director of the OEDK and as a full teaching professor of bioengineering, Maria Oden coordinates the technical design efforts of the department, and the Global Health Technologies minor. »Michael W. DeemJohn W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic EngineeringProfessor, Physics and AstronomyChair, Department of BioengineeringFounding Director, Ph.D. Program in Systems, Synthetic, and Physical Biology (SSPB)Deem GroupPostdoctoral Fellow, Physics, Harvard University (1995-1996)Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley (1994)B.S., with honors, Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (1991)Michael Deem works in the area of evolution, immunology, and materials. He has brought tools from statistical physics to bear on problems in these areas. »Michael R. DiehlAssociate Professor of BioengineeringAssociate Professor of ChemistrySynthetic Biology and Macromolecular Systems Bioengineering GroupBeckman Senior Research Fellow, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,California Institute of Technology (2002-2005)Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, University of California at Los Angeles (2002)B.S., Chemistry, The College of New Jersey (1997)Michael Diehl uses an interdisciplinary approach to investigate the complex function of proteins when they interact as functional groups. »Oleg A. IgoshinAssociate Professor of BioengineeringCellular Systems Dynamics LabPostdoctoral Fellow, Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis (2004-2006)Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley (2004)M.Sc., Chemical Physics, Feinberg Graduate School,Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (2000)B.Sc., Physics, summa cum laude, Novosibirsk State University, Russia (1998)Oleg Igoshin's work in computational systems biology focuses on evolutionary design principles and the characterization of biochemical networks, pattern formation in bacterial biofilms, and genetic networks in bacterial and stem cell development. »Omid VeisehAssistant Professor of Bioengineering,CPRIT Scholar in Cancer ResearchPostdoctoral Fellow, MIT and Harvard Medical School (2011-2016)Ph.D., Materials Science & Engineering and Nanotechnology, University of Washington (2009)B.S., Cell Biology, Western Washington University (2002)Omid Veiseh’s laboratory focuses on the development, processing, and evaluation of novel platforms of implantable and or injectable technologies for in vivo cell and drug delivery and biochemical sensing. This involves characterizing mechanisms of disease pathology and modulating immune system interactions for improved compatibility to biomaterials. »Rebecca Richards-KortumMalcolm Gillis University ProfessorProfessor of BioengineeringProfessor of Electrical and Computer EngineeringDirector, Rice 360°: Institute for Global HealthFounder, Beyond Traditional BordersOptical Spectroscopy and Imaging LaboratoryPh.D., Medical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1990)M.S., Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1987)B.S., Physics and Mathematics, University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1985)Richards-Kortum combines nanotechnology and molecular imaging with microfabrication technologies to build optical imaging systems that are inexpensive, portable, and provide point-of-care diagnosis. »Rebekah A. DrezekProfessor of BioengineeringProfessor of Electrical and Computer EngineeringAssociate Chair, Department of BioengineeringOptical Molecular Imaging and Nanobiotechnology LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (2001-2002)Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin (2001)M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin (1998)B.S., summa cum laude, Electrical Engineering, Duke University (1996)Rebekah Drezek develops optical molecular imaging technologies for the in vivo assessment of tissue pathology and for the quantitative analysis of nanoparticle uptake and interaction within cellular environments »Renata RamosLecturerDirector, Bioengineering Undergraduate StudiesPostdoctoral Fellow, Department of Bioengineering, Rice University (2008-2010)Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, University of Arizona (2008)B.S., summa cum laude, Mechanical Engineering, Industrial Engineering / Mechanical Design,Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Chihuahua, México (2002)Renata Ramos is an instructor for several project-based laboratory modules and lecture courses for Rice's bioengineering program and the George R. Brown School of Engineering. »Robert M. RaphaelAssociate Professor, BioengineeringDirector, Bioengineering Graduate StudiesPrincipal Investigator, Rice University/Baylor College of Medicine Neuroengineering IGERTMembrane and Auditory Bioengineering GroupPostdoctoral Fellow, Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University (1998-2001)Postdoctoral Fellow, Hearing Science, Johns Hopkins University (1996-1998)Ph.D., Biophysics, University of Rochester (1996)M.S., Biophysics, University of Rochester (1992)B.S., Physics/Philosophy, University of Notre Dame (1989)Raphael investigates how the coupling between mechanical, electrical and transport properties of biomembranes regulates cellular processes. The research is producing insights into the causes and treatment of hearing loss and deafness. »Sheng TongSenior Faculty FellowLaboratory of Biomolecular Engineering and NanomedicinePostdoctoral Fellow, Biomedical Engineering, University of California at San Diego (2003-2006)Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, Duke University (2003)M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Peking University (1998)B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China (1995)Sheng Tong develops nano- technologies for the early detection and treatment of atherosclerosis, cancer and many other human diseases. »Tomasz S. TkaczykAssociate Professor in BioengineeringAssociate Professor in Electrical and Computer EngineeringModern Optical Instrumentation and Bio-imaging LaboratoryPostdoctoral Fellow, Applied Optics, The University of Arizona, Tucson (2002 – 2003)Postdoctoral Fellow, Biomedical Imaging, The University of Arizona, Tucson (2001 – 2002)Ph.D. Optical Engineering and Physical Optics, Optical Engineering Div. of the Institute of Micromechanics & Photonics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland (2000)MS. Eng. Optical Engineering, Department of Mechatronics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland (1994)Tkaczyk develops platform optical instruments that combine technologies in optics, opto-mechanics, electronics and software, and bio-chemical materials for the early detection and treatment of disease. »Volker SchweikhardResearch Assistant ProfessorPh.D., Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder (2009)Diplom Physics, University of Stuttgart, Germany (2001)Schweikhard investigates how biological cells communicate to organize and maintain functional tissues and organs, and how these mechanisms fail in disease. »Grant to Rice, Baylor College of Medicine and UT McGovern Medical School to push reconstructive surgery

Healthy rural economies depend on small-town entrepreneurs, and both politicians and nonprofit organizations have programs to help grow rural businesses. Rural entrepreneurship appears to be on the rise. The U.S. Small Business Administration in November sponsored its first Rural Young Entrepreneur Summit — an event designed “to strengthen entrepreneurial culture in rural America.” In October, the Blackstone Charitable Foundation launched a $3 million initiative to encourage the development of innovative enterprise in rural communities in Maine.Strategies for creating sustainable rural businesses differ from urban enterprise expansion efforts because market niches are smaller and consumers are more widely dispersed. Here are five ways to grow a rural business:Cultivate a barn-raising mind-set. Host local economic-development meetings and occasionally lend one of your employees to their efforts. Investments in infrastructure provide a crucial foundation for rural enterprise. Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillin 2008 published case studies that show how one community collaboratively created rural transportation networks and how another used hog waste to produce electricity. These types of collaborations also support business owners in job creation and build relationships that can open doors to new business opportunities.Look for underserved markets. Offer products and services that meet the needs of minority groups in your community. A May 2010 report sponsored by the Ford Foundation noted “ethnic entrepreneurs are well integrated into certain areas of the community.” Business owners who cultivate rich community connections within these well-established networks can grow their customer bases in small towns and rural areas.Tap into social media. Engage your neighbors online. “A sound social-media strategy can improve the assets of your community, raise local awareness of your business, and create more revenue for your business over time,” Mark Crawford notes in Rural Telecom. Except for remote outposts, virtual collaborative communities are equally accessible to both rural and urban business owners — an example of one arena that offers rural entrepreneurs a similarly competitive position to their urban counterparts.Expand your reach. Grow your rural business through e-commerce. Janell Anderson-Ehrke, founder and CEO of GROW Nebraska, conceived the cooperative effort to help rural entrepreneurs become “a force to be reckoned with.” Since 1996, she has helped rural entrepreneurs connect with large corporate enterprises, such as Starbucks and Menards, to reach new markets. Check out The National e-Commerce Extension Initiative, which offers mini-grants to help rural entrepreneurs launch e-commerce strategies.Invest in your community. Employees of Denali State Bank in Fairbanks, Alaska, invest philanthropically in more than 100 local causes, achieving an average of one volunteer effort a day. In the October 2010 edition ofIndependent Banker, CEO Jyotsna Heckman credits the bank’s social capital investment for its success. She reported that the bank’s assets grew to $249 million by 2010, 14 years after it opened.Thanks

No because it is an insignificant part in two thousand years of detailed history, and tens of thousands of years of recorded history.It is briefly touched upon as being a mere nuisance of when the French Empire was meddling in British affairs, here is why it is insignificant.The American Revolution was 1775–1783. Here’s a list of wars Britain was involved in during that time.The First Anglo-Maratha War 1774–1783Anglo-French War 1778–1783Anglo-Spanish War 1770–1783The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 1780–17832nd Anglo-Mysore War 1780–17845 wars.What started in 1775, as an American rebellion against British rule in the thirteen colonies evolved into a far-reaching global war among world’s most powerful nations. Fighting between Britain and American allies including France, Spain and The Dutch Republic spread to the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and Asia.Britain fared well in many of the conflicts waged outside the thirteen colonies, especially those fought after 1781. Consequently, there were significant favorable outcomes of the American Revolution for Britain, especially when viewed in context of the late 18th century state of affairs.On June 17, 1778, when Jean Isaac Timothée Chadeau, Sieur de la Clocheterie French commander of the frigate Belle-Poule formally touched off the global conflict by refusing the customary “presenting his ship” to a 20 ship British fleet, commanded by Adm. Augustus Keppel while sailing off the southern coast of England.[1] Admiral Keppel responded to this affronting slight by opening fire on the Belle-Poule,which suffered a 40 percent casualty rate.[2] The French had a causus belli (an act which justifies war) to openly support the Americans, which it had been covertly doing with increasing intensity. With the French intervening in the American rebellion, the North American war became a global conflict.France’s principal goal was to gain equal status with Britain as a world mercantilist power with substantial colonies throughout the world providing economic and trade advantages. France sought to expand its fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland, increase its holdings in the Caribbean, and to reestablish its commercial relations with North America. Other commercial goals were freedom of trade in India and Africa and the implementation of trade provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) that ended the War of Spanish Succession that Britain had not been honoring. In addition, as a way to cement its standing in the world, France sought to gain a measure of retribution for its loss in the Seven Years War (known in North America as the French and Indian War). France even sought to invade Britain to compel the attainment of these goals.French foreign minister Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes realized that control of the seas and trade routes were critical to successfully prosecuting the war with Britain. However, the British possessed a stronger navy and more ships of the line than France. To counter this deficit, Vergennes sought to bring Spain along with its navy into the war to take on Britain’s navy, the largest in the world. Since 1733, the Bourbon kings of France and Spain periodically renewed a military alliance called the Pacte de Famille(Family Compact or Bourbon Alliance). Vergennes negotiated with the Spanish chief minister José Moñino y Redondo, conde de Floridablanca to renew this alliance.[3] Under Vergennes’ and Floridablanca’s direction, a renewal of the third compact called the Convention of Aranjuez was signed on April 12, 1779, which paved the way for the Spanish to declare war on Britain in June 1779.[4] In the exchange for the Spanish entry into the war, the French agreed to militarily support the Spain’s principle war objective of capturing the vitally strategic fortress of Gibraltar. Gibraltar is the southern most part of the Iberian Peninsula and guards the western entrance to the Mediterranean Sea.In addition, the Spanish war aims included the re-capture from Britain of both East and West Florida that it lost in the Seven Years War (1763) and the return of the western Mediterranean island of Minorca that Spain lost during the War of Spanish Succession (1713). Further, the Spanish sought to remove the British from South America including settlements on the Bay of Honduras and timber cutting on the coast of Campeche, located in the southeast coast of today’s Mexico. There is no mention of the United States in the Treaty of Aranjuez, further demonstrating the importance of the conflict outside the thirteen colonies.As the conflict spread throughout the world, each side sought to deny armaments and naval supplies to their opponents by disrupting normal commerce and trade. Neutral countries became incensed when belligerents detained or captured commercial merchantmen. Under the leadership of Catherine the Great, Russia formed a League of Armed Neutrality that included Denmark-Norway, Sweden, Prussia and the Ottoman Empire. The alliance goals were to protect the neutrals’ ships and commercial trading rights. As neutral trade was more important to Britain’s enemies, the United States and France officially recognized and respected the League’s rights.Britain tacitly agreed and did not interfere with neutral shipping with one exception. The Dutch Republic was tied by treaty to support the French. Dutch merchants provided critical naval stores that under previous treaties were not classified as military contraband and could legally be transported unimpeded to French ports. The British government was concerned that the Dutch would join the League of Armed Neutrality and therefore, any attempt to confiscate Dutch ships would bring all members of the league into the war against Britain. To counter this threat, on December 20, 1780 the British declared war on the Dutch and unilaterally re-classified naval stores as contraband.[5]In addition to European powers, the Indian Kingdom of Mysore, which is located on the southwest coast of the Indian subcontinent, declared war on Britain in 1780. Mysore a French ally, sought to reclaim the French trading port of Mabé captured by the British. Arms and munitions critical to supply Mysore’s army flowed through Mabé. Hyder Ali,[6] the ruler of Mysore made it clear to the British that the French presence in this port was under his protection and by assaulting the French forces, Britain waged war on Mysore.Therefore, Britain stood alone fighting a vast global land and naval conflict. It faced many threats including potential invasion of the homeland, loss of valuable colonies and associated lucrative commercial trade and mounting debts to finance a long, intensive conflict. The need to protect British interests on numerous fronts and in many military theaters thoroughly stretched army and naval assets. Difficult strategic decisions had to be made to re-position limited military assets to counter emerging threats in multiple theaters of operation.Each belligerent sought to gain tactical advantage in one theater without exposing other theaters to peril. In many cases, the most valuable colonies received the first claim on military assets at the expense of less valuable colonies. For example, British army and naval resources were diverted from North America to counter expected new French and Spanish threats in the Caribbean.[7]British NadirAs 1782 began, the war was not going well for the British and they were on the defensive. The Duke of Chandos, a member of the House of Lords referred to the October 1781 Yorktown defeat as a “calamity”[8]and a ”disaster.”[9] It was clear to British leaders that the British Southern strategy failed and that they could not forcibly compel the American colonialists to end their rebellion.News on the other fronts was not encouraging, either. The French were on the verge of taking control of the lucrative Caribbean sugar trade by capturing islands in the eastern region of the Caribbean called the Lesser Antilles and threatening Jamaica. Earlier in the war, French forces captured the British held islands of Dominica (1778), St. Vincent and Grenada (1779) and Tobago (1781).After Yorktown, French Admiral de Grasse and his fleet left the Chesapeake Bay region for the eastern Caribbean and established naval superiority there. In February 1782, Admiral de Grasse attacked and captured the vital islands of St. Kitts, Montserrat and Nevis. The loss of these islands was “disagreeable news”[10] and sent shock waves among London merchants.The British government viewed the Caribbean islands as more commercially important than North America. British leaders even discussed withdrawing from North America to protect the more economically important sugar islands in the Caribbean.[11] The Caribbean islands provided the funding to continue the war and King George III was willing to even risk French invasion of the British homeland to protect these vital territories.[12]The British also faced a deteriorating strategic position guarding the trade routes in the western Mediterranean region. In August 1781, a combined French and Spanish invasion fleet descended upon the British held western Mediterranean Sea island of Minorca. Re-conquest of Minorca, annexed by the British in 1713, was a key Spanish war goal. The island’s deep-water port at Mahón was strategically important as a naval base and convenient port for British privateers which were ravishing Spanish and allied shipping. The French and Spanish invaders completely surprised the widely dispersed British garrison and on February 6, 1782, the last British soldiers laid down their arms. The loss of Minorca increased Spanish pressure on the British fortress at Gibraltar.In the North American, the Caribbean and European theaters, the British were losing significant battles, its forces stretched to the breaking point and popular domestic opinion was turning against continuing the war. There were calls in the press for the British to end the war in America.The whole history of the American War was, from one End to the other, one continued Proof that Systems and Abilities were not to be found in the Management of our Force in the Colonies; An Army was marched from Canada, and captured at Saratoga; another from Charles-town, and surrendered at York-Town. Revenue was the first Object of the War, but that was long since renounced.[13]Further, opposition members introduced a motion in Parliament to end the war in America:… it only asserted a Fact, that among the Operations of the War, America should not be a theater.[14]Reacting to losses at Yorktown, Minorca and in the Caribbean, political displeasure with the conduct of the war intensified. The Prime Minister, Lord North, lost the majority in Parliament and resigned on March 20, 1782. However, there was much more at stake and the British could not simply recognize American independence and end the war. The British situation looked bleak.British TurnaroundHowever, the winter of 1782 turned out to be the British low point in the global war against its European foes. A dramatic turnaround for the British started in the economically vital Caribbean region, continued in Europe and later spread to Asia.In the Caribbean, the Spanish and French planned a large-scale invasion of Jamaica, the largest of the British held sugar producing islands and vital to the British economy.[15] They assembled a 150-ship invasion fleet to transport 15,000 French and Spanish soldiers for the assault. A 35-ship French fleet under the command of Adm. Francois-Joseph Paul, Comte de Grasse provided escort ships.[16]On April 9, 1782 a 36-ship British fleet under the command of Adm. Sir George Rodney intercepted the Franco-Spanish invasion force in the waters between the windward islands of Dominica and Guadeloupe in the Eastern Caribbean. Over the next four days, the two fleets fought a destructive and bloody engagement later referred to as the Battle of the Saintes.Using superior speed and maneuverability, the British captains cut the French fleet into three groups with an effective “breaking of the line,” an innovative naval tactic designed to concentrate firepower without exposing oneself to counter fire. While controversial as to whether it was intentional by Admiral Rodney, this highly successful maneuver led to the defeat of the French fleet.[17] While there is retrospective controversy that Admiral Rodney could have more thoroughly defeated the French Caribbean fleet, it was largely degraded as an offensive fighting force. The balance of power shifted to the British.Given the strategic and economic importance of Jamaica, the British press lauded Admiral Rodney’s victory and he received the title of baron and was recognized by the House of Lords:… thanks of the House to Sir George Rodney, and the officers and the seaman, who gained the glorious and compleat victory on the 12thof April last, in the West-Indies; a victory which his Lordship allowed to be the most brilliant of any which the naval history of this country …[18]The victory greatly improved the British negotiating position in the peace talks as the French and Spanish lost the military initiative and realized that they could not defeat the British in the Caribbean and capture Jamaica.The British military turnaround continued in the European theater. In September 1782 a joint Franco-Spanish force of over 35,000 troops escalated a siege of the British fortress at Gibraltar held by 7500 men.[19] However, Gibraltar’s natural defenses made a land assault very difficult without disabling key waterfront gun batteries. Chevalier d’Arcon, a French military engineer and Colonel devised and built a new floating gun battery to assault these gun batteries.However, anxious Spanish commanders rushed the new vessels into action without adequate testing and crew training. As a result of unfavorable winds, poor seamanship and a lack of coordination with the Spanish fleet, the British destroyed all of the unprotected floating gun batteries. With no other way to blast a route into Gibraltar, the French and Spanish called off their attack.The next month Adm. Richard Howe led a fleet of 35 ships of the line and a large convoy of merchantmen to re-supply Gibraltar. The blockading Spanish fleet under the command of Adm. Luis de Córdova sailed out to engage the British fleet. The two fleets fought an inconclusive battle off the coast of modern day Morocco (the Battle of Cape Spartel). While the two fleets maneuvered for a fighting edge, Admiral Howe’s transports slipped into Gibraltar with needed food and military supplies. As a result of the floating gun battery debacle and a successful resupply, the Franco-Spanish force lifted the siege and the British gained a vital victory by holding the Spanish coveted Gibraltar.On a second front in the European theater, the British effectively blockaded the Dutch Navy at its principal navy base on Texcel Island preventing any offensive operations. The one attempt by the Dutch Navy to engage the British Navy resulted in a 3 hour and 40 minute encounter called the Battle of the Dogger Bank. Each side suffered the same level of battle damage and the engagement was a bloody, tactical draw.[20]After this ineffective attempt, Dutch naval forces remained in their anchorages unable or unwilling to sortie with Franco-Spanish fleets and leaving their merchant shipping fleet unprotected. The Dutch were ready for peace, but continued the conflict due to alliance obligations to France. Dutch military forces contributed little to the anti-British alliance other than tying up valuable British ships of the line that could have been deployed in other military theaters.Finally, the British successfully thwarted the French and their Indian Mysore allies’ attempts to seize British held territories in southeastern India. Starting on February 17, 1782 French and British Naval Forces fought a series of inconclusive naval engagements off India’s eastern shore. The French did land 3000 troops to assist Mysore.[21] However, without clear naval superiority, the French/Mysore alliance could not recapture the British held territories.Entering peace negotiations in the fall of 1782, the global strategic situation for the British was significantly more favorable than the situation right after Yorktown. While the British could not quell the American rebellion, in North America they held the valuable port cities of New York, Savannah, Charleston, Penobscot, St. Augustine and all of the territory of Canada. Against its European enemies, Britain controlled the balance of naval and commercial power in the West Indies, Europe and Asia. Further the United States, France and Spain were all running out of money and resources to further prosecute the war.The Treaty of Paris and its ImpactTo maximize leverage, the British insisted on negotiating a separate treaty with the Americans and each of its European allies. This allowed the British to “give up” American independence while preserving maximum advantage over the French, Spanish and Dutch. The allies realized that only by coordinating their treaties and staying together, could they keep a strategic balance to maximize leverage during the negotiations.Therefore, negotiations proceeded in parallel and final separate treaties were not signed until there was an agreement with all parties. Britain signed final individual peace treaties with America, France and Spain on September 3, 1783. War with the Dutch formally continued until a fourth Treaty of Paris was signed on May 20, 1784. Mysore concluded a peace agreement with the British on March 11, 1784.British newspapers heralded the peace treaties as containing terms more favorable than expected.The Definitive Treaty having been signed by the French, Spaniards and Americans, peace may be said to be fairly established, and to the honor of the present Ministers, upon terms greatly more advantageous to this country than could have been hoped for from some Preliminary articles settled by the late Administration.[22]After fighting the world’s most powerful nations with no military allies, the British only lost the 13 colonies to independence and Florida and Minorca to the Spanish. The resulting peace agreement preserved British control of its most valuable colonial assets, the sugar producing islands in the West Indies, some of which had been captured by the French. Colonial control of most West Indies islands largely reverted to pre-war status. The British regained the French held islands of Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Kitts, Nevis and Montserrat. Only the small island of Tobago was transferred from British to French control. Spain also returned the Bahamas to the British, which it captured in May 1782.[23]With respect to North America, Britain maintained its Canadian colony and in conflict with the final peace treaty, retained military forts in American territory to protect valuable trade with Native Americans. These northwest frontier forts of Oswego, Niagara, Detroit and Michilimackinac were not turned over to the Americans until 1798. Britain further benefited by no longer funding military security for the thirteen colonies and continued to impress American sailors at will.The subsequent rise in commercial relations with America further validated the British strategy of pursuing international trade dominance. The United States became extremely valuable to British manufacturing and trading industries. In the ten year period following the war, Britain exported over £25 million of goods to the new United States while importing £8 million of principally raw materials and food. This large balance of trade surplus financed commerce with other trading partners and was vital to the Britain’s economic prosperity.[24]In Africa and India, the pre-war situation was restored with a minor exchange of a few territories. The British protected and expanded trade in India and Asia, a key wartime goal. The British gained valuable trading rights in the Dutch East Indies and employed Indian ports to illicitly trade valuable goods with Dutch holdings on Ceylon.Although a “victor,” France gained almost nothing from its considerable war investment. The French monarchy received a modicum of retribution for losses during the Seven Years War and gained pride in assisting the thirteen colonies become independent from its archenemy. However, France did not unseat Britain as the preeminent commercial and naval power and did not gain equal geopolitical status with Britain, its principle war objective.The final treaty granted France minor territorial concessions. Britain returned Saint Lucia to France and surrendered the small island of Tobago in the Caribbean. France re-affirmed its rights gained in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 to fish off North America and reconfirmed its ownership of two small islands south of Newfoundland in the Atlantic Ocean. Also, France won the right to re-fortify the English Channel port of Dunkirk that it lost in the peace treaty ending the Seven Years War. These small gains came at a huge financial cost. War cost estimates range from 772 million[25] to 1250 million livres.[26] This financial burden almost bankrupted the French government and severely weakened its monarchy. And the King of Great Britain could continue to call himself King of France; a claim that dated back to the 14th Century and one that the Britain would not relinquish until 1800.[27]Although almost bankrupt at the end of the war, Spain fared better in the final peace terms than France and at a much lower military and financial cost. The Spanish negotiated to keep their military conquest of East and West Florida that it lost in the peace agreement ending the Seven Years War and maintained the valuable port city of New Orleans, thereby controlling trade on the Mississippi River. They kept possession of Minorca, which they captured, from the British. However, they did not gain Gibraltar, their principal wartime goal.The Dutch yielded nothing from their participation and suffered significant economic losses due to capture of their merchant ships and loss of trade. Fortunately, the French pressed the British to principally return Dutch holdings in Asia and the Caribbean to the pre-war status. However, the British forced the Dutch to provide access to trade in the Dutch East Indies. Never again would a Dutch fleet represent a meaningful threat to the British Navy and their economy would require many years to recover. Symbolically, Dutch ships were required to salute the British flag when they met in the open ocean.[28]The Indian Kingdom of Mysore also did not gain any advantages from its alliance with France and its participation in the American Revolution. The resulting peace treaty restored the pre-war territorial ownership and control. Over the next few years, Mysore and Britain would go on to fight two more wars.[29]So from a European and global view, the aftermath of the American Revolution was relatively positive for the British. In fact, some British political observers believed that American independence was a good development for Britain.I say, I am glad, that America had declared herself independent of us, though the Reasons very opposite to theirs. America, I have proved beyond the Possibility of a Confutation, ever was a Millstone hanging around the Neck of this Country, to weigh it down: And as we ourselves had not the Wisdom to cut the Rope, and to let the Burden fall off, the Americans have kindly done it for us.[30]The British were not the big losers as depicted in American historical accounts and may have “won” as much as they could and made the best of a difficult geo-political situation. Their European opponents did not achieve their war objectives: France did not become a geo-political equal of Britain, Spain did not win Gibraltar and the Dutch economy was severely injured. Victories over its European foes preserved Britain as a global trading colonial empire, which strengthened, and endured through the 19th Century. Lastly, Britain turned the United States into a major trading partner and a central component of its commercial empire.Sources[1] As a result of this service to the King, de la Clocheterie was promoted to Captain and given command of several ships of the line. He died in the pivotal Battle of the Saintes in 1782.[2] Jonathan R. Dull, The French Navy and American Independence (Princeton, NJ: The Princeton University Press, 1975), 118-9.[3] Spain’s ambassador to France Conde de Aranda and the French ambassador to Spain Armand-Marc Comte de Montmorin-Saint-Hérem also played key roles.[4] Treaty of Alliance between France and Spain, concluded at Aranjuez, April 12, 1779, Ratification by Spain, May12, 1779, and Ratification by France, April 28, 1779, full text Charles Oscar Paullin, European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies (Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, LTD., 2004), Vol. IV, 145-6.[5] David Syrett, The Royal Navy in European Waters during the American Revolutionary War (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 128.[6] Indian sources spell Hyder, Haider.[7] In March 1778, Britain moved 5000 soldiers from New York to the West Indies. They were employed to capture the Caribbean island of St. Lucia on December 13, 1778.[8] Salisbury and Winchester Journal, February 11, 1782, 2.[9] Hampshire Chronicle, February 4, 1782.[10] Derby Mercury, March 21, 1782, 4.[11] Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy, The Men Who Lost America (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2013), 294-5.[12] Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy, “Empire Divided: The American Revolution and the British Caribbean” (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 208.[13] Northampton Mercury, December 17, 1781, 2.[14] Northampton Mercury, December 17, 1781, 2.[15] Jamaica’s population was estimated at 219,600 in 1775 surpassing Cuba at 172,000 as the next most populace. Granville W. and N.C. Hough, Spanish, French, Dutch and American Patriots of the West Indies During the American Revolution Part 7 Spanish Borderland Studies (Midway, CA: Society of Hispanic Historical Ancestral Research, 2001), 4.[16] Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American Independence (London: Sampson Low, Marston & Company, 1913), 207.[17] For a complete description of the “Breaking of the Line” naval tactic, see Bob Ruppert, Who really crossed the T in the Battle of the Saintes?, Journal of the American Revolution, Who Really “Crossed the T” in the Battle of the Saintes? - Journal of the American Revolution, accessed June 5, 2015.[18] Stamford Mercury, May 30, 1782, 4.[19] René Chartrand, Gibraltar 1779-83: The Great Siege (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, LTD., 2006), 62-3.[20] David Syrett, The Royal Navy in European Waters during the American Revolutionary War, 130-1.[21] Piers Mackesy, The War for America 1775-1783 (Lincoln and London: The University of Nebraska Press, 1964), 497.[22] Stamford Mercury, Reprinted from the London Gazette, September 9, 1783, 1.[23] For an overview of the West Indies region and a graphical depiction of the change of control of the West Indies islands see a web page: XenophonGroup Page - Boende i Nice, accessed June 7, 2015.[24] Antonio de Alcedo and George Alexander Thompson, The Geographical and Historical Dictionary of America and the West Indies (London: Carpenter & Son, 1815), xvi-xvii.[25]James Breck Perkins, France in the American Revolution (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911), 498.[26]Jonathan R. Dull, “France and the American Revolution: Questioning the Myths,” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History (1974): 110-119.[27] Samuel Flagg Bemis, The Diplomacy of the American Revolution (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1935), 254.[28] Samuel Flagg Bemis, The Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 254.[29] Mysore and Britain fought two more wars, the first of which Lord Cornwallis personally commanded the British forces. Although a loser at Yorktown, Cornwallis was a successful Governor General and Commander in Chief in India.[30] Josiah Tucker, Four Letters on Important National Subjects, ed. Max Beloff, The Debate on the American Revolution, 1761-1783 (New York: The British Book Centre, 1949), 297.