Is it fair to describe Augustus' foreign policy as a matter of aggressive expansionism?

This question is highly debated by scholarship, but it's important in understanding what framework Augustus built for the Empire. Contemporary sources don't imply that Augustus was defensive at all; Propertius, Horace and Virgil (all under the patronage and influence of Maecenas, Augustus' ally) wrote about Rome dominating the world. Even the first line of the Res Gestae says Augustus subjected the world to Roman rule. Propaganda aside, he also added more territory to the Empire than any before. Egypt, Libya, Pannonia, the Balkans-all were conquered in his reign. This leads some scholars like P.A. Brunt (1963) to conclude that Augustus was an expansionist. However, the imperialist image often falls flat. In the Parthian settlement of 20. BC, Rome implicitly recognised Parthia's sovereignty; years later the borders between Parthia and the Empire were finalised by Gaius. Despite contemporary coinage and literature showing the 'subjugation' of Parthia, it is evident that a diplomatic solution was used with the Parthian problem. Even in military matters Augustus demonstrates a certain prudence: for example, profitless Britain was left well alone in his reign, and where conquest proved difficult (eg Gallus and Varus in Arabia and Germania) he did not pursue it further. Those who favour a defensive standpoint might agree with the arguments of Gruen (1990) and Rich (2003). The dichotomy presented here is not easily solved. It is useful to remember that Augustus was a master propagandist, and promoting an image of conquest certainly boosted his popularity as 'princeps'. However, conquest could not be indefinite. Where conquest failed, 'auctoritas' and indirect rule remained. If we look at the section of the Res Gestae concerning conquests, we see that Augustus includes two other groups of people: envoys and client states. Receiving envoys from far-off lands can be read as the extension of Rome's influence to the far corners of the world. The use of client states such as Armenia and Israel provided useful buffer zones to the empire, while pacifying people that might be difficult to conquer. Perhaps through this middle ground Augustus was able to justify his claim that Rome had conquered the world