Who was tougher, Roman legionary or a modern spec ops soldier

The arguments made in the previous debate are valid, but I disagree with my opponent's view that my opinions are based off of hollywood perceptions. If I were arguing that the Spartans were just as good as they appeared to be from the movie 300, that would make sense, but I am making an argument based on historical fact. In fact, until Gaius Marius implemeted vast changes in the Roman Army, the rules for getting into the army were much stricter. He implemented his new system which allowed many more men to join, thus giving the Romans a bigger army. I do not believe that Legionaries were supermen, which is how Hollywood portrays them. I also know Hollywood portrays SF operators as incredible fighters, taking down dozens of men with a couple of well placed blows and shots. I do believe however, that both groups were and are the best at what they were trained to do. A Roman's life expectancy was not as long as ours, that is true, but there were quite a few veterans of war. The Romans would go on campaign for years and many of them would survive it. It is true that they made mistakes, some of which have gone down in history (Battle of Teutoburg Forest, for instance, where the whole 9th Legion was annihalated in an ambush) but for the most part they handled themselves well. Physical size is a important factor in a fight, but it isn't everything. Skill and experience, as well as instinct play crucial roles as well. The Romans fought well against the Germanic tribes on open field, who usually were bigger and stronger in size then the average Roman soldier (up to six inches taller and they did have problems adapting to forest warfare against the barbarians). They respected these men and did not enjoy going into battle against them, but they could usually beat them in a head to head confrontation. SF operators are quite good at hand to hand combat, but I still stand by my agument that the Romans had much more experience and know how on their side. SF operators are skilled enough to teach others, but I'm sure Romans passed down their knowledge just the same, even to others that did not understand the language; you don't have to understand someone else's language to teach them how to fight, you can just show them. Roman Legionaries volunteered as well, not all the time, but many of them, especially the poorer classes, would enlist because of the benefits of serving the Empire. They would receive training, and then the better ones might be moved into more elite units. Look at the Praetorian Cohort, for example. They were literally the SF of their times; the personal guard for generals and other important figures. And they weren't like the Secret Service, which are good but not always very good; they were some of the best fighters in the world at the time. So I do not believe that the Romans were just ordinary soldiers with mediocre results; their conquest of much of the known world at the time can attest to that. In fact Roman legions were considered elite infantry for most of the Roman Imperial age, recruits coming only from citizens that had graduated honorably from auxilia (http://en.wikipedia.org...). After Gaius Marius made changes, that did change but Roman soldiers were still considered the best in the world. Lastly, the brutality of ancient warfare is something I think even a SF would be unprepared for. I'm not saying that war today isn't horrible, but the modern soldier is becoming more distanced from the battlefield, with guns and modern technology. Romans didn't have the Geneva Convention, and they slaughtered with impunity. They had no qualms about killing innocent civilians, including children and women. I am not sure the modern soldier would do that without hesitation, even most SFO's. Even the punishments were harsh, including being beat to death for desertion by your fellow comrades. These men were brutal, and they would fight to the death. I thank my oponent for the spirited debate, however I feel that my case presents a better argument.