Back to the (bodkin) point...
Yes, in the 1940s the Lithuanians had a handful of Forest Brothers who kept on fighting Russian occupation...
Robin Hood seen as a Hereward the Wake figure is plausible and the idea of him being too noble to use a bow is just plain stupid. After all, Richard Coeur de Lion used a crossbow at Acre. As far back as the reign of 'King' William the Bastard, the Welsh archers were literally a PIA to Norman knights.
'They don't like it up 'em, sir, they don't like it up 'em!'
William did say that if England had had a dozen men like Hereward, he would have been unable to hold the country.
Looking at it from the point of view of being an outlaw in semi-wooded country, people outside Britain make the common mistake that a Royal Forest must be dense woodland. Not true. Many of the most famous were simply tracts of mainly open country in which the Forest Laws held sway and deer were protected. Forest Courts were as much about raising revenue for the Crown from easily-infringed laws as from deer protection.
Barnsleydale and Sherwood (Scirwudu) could thus be linked by open country. If Robin was a successful outlaw, then like a 1700s highwaymen he would need 'safe houses' and would probably share his plunder with them. However, where it gets really interesting is when you consider his objectives, for if he's fighting established authority he needs (like Robin) to have effective weapons. The small amount of iron or steel needed to make an anti-tank round of his day - the famous bodkin-point clothyard shaft - was easier to obtain than the steel needed for swords.
So....
An archery army with longbows plus pikemen a la Suisse, and you have a force that would have massacred mounted knights. Read the story of the old Swiss Confederacy's battles with the Habsburgs, and you'll see what pikes alone could achieve.
Robin Hood could have existed but the jump from woodlands outlaw to successful revolutionary government is a big one.
Give this TL a chance!