Not at all. A bandit in the context of those days was a clear definition.
Perhaps you are looking for a usurper or someone who is trying to over throw the King. But, there is no reference to that at all. You implied from the very beginning terrorist. That context was not used at all for RH any word form.
The clear definition of banditry in those days included the notion of the rejection of duly constituted authority in the area in which the bandit operated, which indeed amounted to subversion of the entire political order with both political AND theological implications.
Which made the term possibly even more condemnatory than “terrorist” today.
Oh I’m sorry I thought you knew the story of Robin Hood, he was a man who led a guerrilla campaign against what he regarded as the illegitimate government regime of England.
He killed and robbed civilians whom he regarded as political enemies and government collaborators by means of ambush and murder.
See what that makes him?
Well to anyone who supports his ideology he is of course a ‘freedom fighter’ but anyone who supported the government, including those in the media (monastic scribes being the nearest thing to a mass media in those days), would have regarded him as an outlaw or a bandit or in modern terms, and here I pause to let you contemplate a really difficult mental picture, a “terrorist”.
Hence my original point.
Not too hard to work out, really now is it?