also to add on was it like a line battle? ranged weapons first then a charge?

There sure have been a lot of questions on Greek warfare of late, and I've been late to the party on all of them. This is a topic I actually studied a lot about.

To begin, we don't know exactly how it (hopllite warfare) was fought, because there are no really good contemporary sources that describe it in any real detail, but I will give you a brief idea of what the orthodoxy is regarding this topic.

Hoplite warfare consisted mainly of two opposing armies facing each other in the form of a phalanx. It was typically 8 men deep, though there were exceptions to this, and it could go as high as 50 men deep (see the Sacred Band of Thebes), and could stretch out for long distances depending on the size of the armies fighting.

A hoplite protected half his body and half of the body of the man next to him with his shield. The phalanx moved as one cohesive unit, or at least they tried to!

Once the two armies met, the idea was to clash shields together and push! While pushing, the first couple of rows would spear, while the back rows would push their own soldiers forward, and by using this momentum and force, they hoped to knock down the opponent.

Knocking down the opponent served a couple of purposes. It would leave the opponent more vulnerable, which the dominant side could then thrust their spears into an unprotected area and injure or kill them.

This would also then create a hole in the phalanx, which would allow the side that has the momentum to go into the oppositions line and start stabbing from the side, and ultimately create enough panic in the infiltrated line that they would turn and run. At this point the now winning side would give chase and really do harm.

Thucydides gives an account of the Battle of Mantinea where he describes how, when two sides approached each other, the tendency was for the line to move to the right while advancing. This was because the hoplites would lean further into the protectiveness of the shield of the man next to him. I hope this is making sense so far.

This leaning, caused the armies to meet up at points that they were not intended to. The best armies (Sparta for example) would always take the right flank, the position of honor, because they trained to remain straight when marching forward, and not give ground, while also keeping their allies moving as straight forward as possible.

Once the armies clashed it was usually total havoc. Dust everywhere, limited visibility due to the design of the Corinthian helmet, an overall mess on the battle field.

As time went on, during the 4th century, the Greeks began using more innovative tactics, and soldiers were better trained.

It's a shame we can't use real people to try and figure out how it really all went down! As I mentioned, we only have limited information on how hoplite warfare was fought because no one really documented it in any great detail, at least nothing that survived.

Sources:

Donald Kagan - The Peloponnesian War

Victor Davis Hanson - A War Like No Other. (I recommend this book for those interested in understanding all aspects of Greek warfare, it's a great read).

Thucydides - The Peloponnesian War.

Edit: It would take many more paragraphs to provide more in-depth detail of hoplite warfare, but as I mentioned, Victor D. Hanson's book "A War Like No Other" is a great book to start with, and is one of those books that you won't be able to put down if you're interested in this fascinating topic!