Traditionally, Macbeth has been considered a tragedy rather than a history.  I can second that statement.  However, it has also been argued that the play can be considered a history, or even a mix of a tragedy and a history.  The story of Macbeth as told by Shakespeare does not meet some of the requirements to be considered a Shakespearean history, and also adheres to most of the aspects that define his plays as tragedies.

Shakespearean histories actually have specific guidelines that Shakespeare seemed to follow.  For one, the plays he made that are considered true histories (not on the borderline like Macbeth) are all based on the lives of English kings, such as King John and Henry IV.    The difference here is obvious- Macbeth is a Scottish king.  Also, it does not tell of his life so much as it describes a specific time in Macbeth’s life.  The other histories tell of at least a good portion of the king’s life, whereas Macbeth the play takes place in a matter of a few days.

The character of Macbeth is a good example of a tragic hero.  While he does commit terrible crimes against people, one cannot help but admire some of his characteristics such as his bravery. Another admirable part of Macbeth are his inner thoughts questioning his morals such as when he ponders the results before murdering Duncan.  “First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,/ Strong both against the deed: then, as his host,/ Who should against his murderer shut the door,/ Not bear the knife myself” (I-VII, Lines 13-16).  One must understand that even though Macbeth may seem completely evil at times, a tragic hero can have the capacity to commit just as man immoral deeds as good ones.