Why ancient Romans and Italians were so good at warfare, and modern Italians are not

[Corvus]

Thank you for your replies gentlemen. 

Your post also seems to imply that genetics or culture provides some sort of answer regarding military success, 

Yes, I think that culture, organisation and mentality are very important to military success. I dont believe that genetics are. 

So one can not say that modern Italian are not good soldiers. Rome was a unique ancient political entity hence its success and others failure. The average Roman and Italian peasant of that period, the back bone of the army, was probably no tougher or smarter than peasants anywhere else in that region, they were just part of a better military and political system, with some very good leaders.

 
So why was Rome unique, and had a better military and political system?

It's amazing that someone answered Corvus' ethnically biased question. I'm 75 years old, mostly "modern" Italian (at least 50%), and willing to bet (when it comes down to a powerful hit with a sword or sagaris) I could put him in the hospital. Heed this: if a modern Italian seems martially reticent, it's because he's not pis*ed-off enough. 

Sorry if I offended your national feelings, but if you look at the record of the Italian army since the unification of Italy, its not very impressing.
I just was interested to know what made Rome and Italian people in the past such good soldiers. 
What were the differences. Where exactly do you see bias here?
Yes cultures and nations have certain specifics. But if they wouldnt, it would mean there is one big culture without any differences.

I would retract this question if I were you -- it can be construed as flirting with racialism.

I don"t say that Romans were more successful because of their genes or biological traits. To tell that they had a different culture and mentality and to ask what the differences were is not racism.
And I do believe their culture and mentality were different from the one of the modern Italians.