Was the Roman Army the most effective fighting force pre-gunpowder?

[Rubus]

Dan it's easy to pick a dozen disasters in the 2,000 year history of the Roman military.  

Aren't you doing the same to 1000 years of medieval history?

The Fourth Crusade was terrible crime, and the greatest example of Christian on Christian violence ever to take place.  Due to treason and duplicity the Crusaders destroyed the Eastern Romans.

1. I don't agree. It's far more complicated that that. Beyond that our modern standards of right and wrong shouldn't be pressed onto the Middle Ages or - heaven forbid! - on Antiquity.
2. So now we are comparing moralities? I thought we were talking about a fantasy battle and not if a Roman or a Medieval soldier committed war crimes or was a nice guy. Because this is a totally different story and I really hope you don't want to go this slippery way. 

Medieval armies were full of backstabbing, politics, treason

1000 years of medieval military history and this is your conclusion??

Drop Republican Rome with Julius Caesar 1,000 years into the future and have him invade Gaul (Europe) and you would still see the eventual conquest of Medieval Europe by the legions.  

You suggest this army would have reinforcements, a supply chain etc.? But the Early Medieval armies they face wouldn't have because ... bad early medieval economy etc.? If you pick the battles for this mindgame yourself of course you will win.

But history isn't a Total War-game where both armies just meet on a more or less open plain and battle it out. Drop Caesar in early medieval Europe without a Roman state or reinforcements to support his army and I doubt he would succeed. Just remember how often he went back to Italy to raise new legions!

Medieval warfare wasn't ment to be all about large battles and huge armies but consisted of smaller skirmishes and sieges. And they got good at it with the time! This discussion is as futile as this whole "Deadliest Warrior"-show. It's like asking if a professional football player or a professional boxer is "better". Both of them would certainly win in their own discipline against the other because they are trained under the proper mindset to win the game they know their way. We can all agree that that a boxer would win in a boxing match against a football player. But does this make him "better" or "more effective"?