Are you content to make this a pissing contest? That the Roman's failed to maintain their military prowess says nothing to the validity of the principles they established. Most of those principles are still valid to this day, though like camoflage uniforms, they've been incorporated into nearly all modern military organizations.
I don't disagree, but the dichotomy between soldier and warrior is a false one, IMHO. Back in the mid 80s, when I was still active in the AF Reserve, the AF, feeling that the military had become just another job for most members, had something called "Project Warrior", (I was the project Warrior OIC for my detachment) and I believe the Army had something similar. A soldier, (and the others too) needs to be a warrior. Of course there is more to being a warrior than merely having the warrior spirit. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an effective soldier, sailor, Marine or airman. Our military is organized along lines similar to those of the Romans. Strong NCOs and "remote" (in the sense of approachability not physical presence) officers being a very important component of that structure.
That said there are variations, and some modern militaries have had a nearly non-existance NCO corps. The Soviets for example, yet they managed pretty well against the Nazies and were of some concern to the US afterwards.