I will answer without making reference to least common multiple (See Proofwiki Order of Product of Disjoint Permutations) but still making use of that the length of a cycle is equal to its order. Therefore, I do not know any formula for the order of a permutation. I will still be able to answer because I know what the order of a permutation is not.
Proof:
Let $p$ be a permutation in $S_n$. If $p$ is identity, then its order is obviously 1. If $p$ is not identity and a product of disjoint transpositions, then its order is obviously $2$. Conversely, if $p$ has order 1, then $p$ is obviously identity, an empty product of disjoint transpositions. Suppose $p$ has order 2. If $p$ is not a transposition (product of 1 transposition) or a product of disjoint transpositions, then $p$ is:
a product of intersecting transpositions, where we have that not all its transpositions are the same with each other.
$p$ is a cycle of length greater than 2.
$p$ is a product containing a cycle of length greater than 2.
Case 2 contradicts our assumption that $p$ has order 2 because of the length of $p$ is its order, which we know.
In Case 3, while we don't know what the order of $p$ is, we know $p^2 \ne 1$ so the order cannot be 2, another contradiction.
In Case 1, intersecting transpositions will give us a cycle of length greater than 2, which reduces to Case 3. That intersecting transpositions will give us a cycle of length greater than 2 follows from the more general fact that $$(a_1\cdots a_k)=(a_1\cdots a_i)(a_{i}\cdots a_k)$$
Since both that the more general fact in Case 1 and that in Case 2 our deduction the order $p$ is not 2 do not make use of the order of a permutation's being related to a least common multiple, I have proved the result without knowing a formula for the order of a permutation is.