Was Macbeth a real person?
Macbeth did indeed ascend the Scottish throne after the death of King Duncan I, but Duncan was a fairly young man (unlike the old and wise Duncan of the play) and was by no means a very able ruler. He was not murdered in his bed, but defeated and killed by Macbeth at the Battle of Pitgaveny on the 14th August, 1040 in what was a generally popular dynastic coup. As king, Macbeth seemed to bring order and stability to Scotland, so much so that he was able to leave and go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050. However, the King of England, (Edward The Confessor) made an massive invasion bid under the command of Earl Siward in 1054 which severely weakened Scotland once again. Although Macbeth's regime survived that crisis, Duncan's son Malcolm Canmore (the future Malcolm III) was later able to defeat Macbeth at the Battle of Lumphanam on the 15th August, 1057. Mortally wounded, Macbeth died at Scone shortly afterwards and was succeeded as king by his stepson, Lulach (as opposed to Malcolm). Unlike in the Shakespeare play, Macbeth was not considered a tyrant by his contemporaries and had a generally very successful reign lasting 17 years. The reason this may have changed in Shakespeare's Macbeth is because Shakespeare made his plays to please the English monarchy, and the real history does not portray England as a very moral country.
Macbeth, Lady Macbeth (who had the singularly unattractive given name of Gruoch), Duncan, Malcolm and Donalbain were real historical people. Holinshed claimed that Banquo was too, although that may be more dubious. There is reference to Edward the Confessor in the play--he was a real person, as was the English lord Siward.
In 'Macbeth,' Banwuo was a real person, who happened to be related to King James I. The character was originally supposed to be a murderer who helped Macbeth kill King Duncan. However, fearing the king might not take too kindly to his relative being called a murderer, Banquo's character was changed into a nobleman.
I assume you meant "Why did Shakespeare make Macbeth a villan?" Well, what could the storyline have been if he wasn't a villan? Shakespeare's Macbeth was based on the real Macbeth. He murdered his king, Duncan, and became king. I guess that means that the real Macbeth was a villan, and so Shakespeare only kept it that way, showing it wasn't Shakespeare that made his character of Macbeth a villan.
Because the witches said that Macbeth would not die until Birnam Wood came to the castle and trees supposedly cannot move and that the person to kill Macbeth is not of woman born, but Macbeth figures that everyone is born from a woman...or so he thought Because the witches said that Macbeth would not die until Birnam Wood came to the castle and trees supposedly cannot move and that the person to kill Macbeth is…
At the outset of Macbeth, Duncan is the King of Scotland. Shortly after Macbeth commits regicide, he becomes the King. At the very end of the play, Malcolm (Duncan's son) is taken to be crowned. Unless you meant in terms of real history, in which case, James I was on the throne when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth.
The more dynamic person is Macbeth because in the beginning he is unsure whether or not kill the King or to remain loyal to him. However, he is persuaded by his wife Lady Macbeth, - who by the way is a static character - to kill the King. After he kills the king, Macbeth's ambition does not only drive him to do great things, it spins him out of control and begins to take over…