The objective of this paper is to draw a balance sheet of different approaches to the interpretation of Roman expansion to the East between 200 and 30 B.C. It was done mainly through wars against Macedon, Syria and Egypt. In order to accomplish this a short analysis is made of three ways of explaining this: that of Arthur Eckstein, called realist, that of Paul Burton, constructivist, and that of William Harris, who emphazises Rome's agresiveness, unmatched in those times. The conclusion is that, although not all of them are pro-Roman, they are made with an American perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]