If King John was in charge he would almost certainly have branded Hood as a terrorist, after all he was attacking civilian targets in order to change the current political regime.
That is why I deliberately used the term, I agree that “terrorist” is a much abused term but in the context of King John’s England it would have been accurate.
And yes, if any secessionist attacked civilians in their campaign to break the link with Britain during the American War of Independence then the government in London would have indeed branded them as terrorists.
It’s not my fault if the word “terrorist” is often used out of context especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You used the term ‘terrorist’. The document refers to them as ‘bandits’. Big difference.