What are some differences between the heroes in Elizabethan tragedies and Greek tragedies?

In Greek tragedy, a hero is carefully defined – falling from a high place, tragic flaw, catharsis, etc. – as defined and illustrated by Aristotle in The Poetics.  By Elizabethan times the term “tragedy” had become somewhat looser, describing a genre in which persons suffered various inequities (some of which – Macbeth and King Lear, for example – still fulfilled the Greek definition, and some which do not – Romeo and Juliet and Troilus and Cressida, for example).  These tragic heroes were more dramatic constructions to tell a story on the stage, rather than a quasi-religious icon of a philosophical world view.  Elizabethan heroes were more complex in their motives, in their psychological make-up, in their social standing, part of the "commodity" of theatre, rather than part of the ritual to honor Dionysus, as Greek tragedies were. Finally, the very term "hero" becomes rather ambiguous in Elizabethan drama, because whole societies were not necessarily affected, as kingdoms were in Greek tragedy.