If we're going to look at Robin Hood as a historical figure, not just myth, it's important to consider a few KNOWN facts about archers of that period:
-The vast majority belong to a lord or earl, who are in servitude to the king. It's safe to say that there were at least a few who were acting as mercenaries, fighting for money instead of duty, but they're most likely the minority.
-Any decent archer had more than just a few months of training. Most likely they had been shooting almost all their lives, typically a warbow ranging from 80# to 150#, though obviously that's just a theory. Suddenly switching bows or arrows might severely effect the lethality of archers in battle.
-Most of them were peasants, or low-born.
Most archers of the period didn't have back-quivers. They held less arrows and were prone to spill if a man bent over. While a little later on, we can look at the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and even Agincourt to examine the equipment. Arrow bags, which hung either at the hip or over the shoulder, were more for transporting arrows than anything else. Unless they were ambushed or had to make a quick shot, in battle they would typically pull out a number of arrows and put them at their feet, ready for use.
Now, bodkins and broadheads. ("Flesh arrows", as they were sometimes called) It's important to remember that while both are very effective tips, each serves an entirely different purpose. The English drove a mounted French army to it's knees in 1346 with a storm of bodkins. A long, needle-nosed bodkin could pierce chain mail at certain ranges, and even plate if the range was close and the arrow hit square. This same feat wouldn't have been possible with broadheads. They lack the penetration of bodkins, and are essentially useless against armor. However, a good flesh arrow can kill a horse with deadly efficiency and send a mounted knight to the ground, where unless he can get up, will probably be killed by a mace, axe, or dagger through a gap in the armor later on.
Other things to consider:
-Were they only expected to shoot, or would they be called on to fight in a shield wall as well? IE: Are they carrying swords/axes/maces, or not?
-If Robin Hood was returning from the Crusades in the middle east, he would definitely need a good pair of boots, or a horse. Possibly both.
Just my $.02
EDIT: I really hope you don't take this the wrong way, WillS, but I respectfully disagree on the matter of the bow choice. While it's very true that a shorter bow was much easier to maneuver in the forest, at the time European bowyers either chose not to or did not have the means/resources to make very short bows. The long, heavy bow we see come out of England in this time period was designed this way for a reason.
The warbow as it came to be called was more than just a hunting tool. It's purpose was to kill armored, possibly mounted enemies. In that case, you would need all the available power you could get. In the research I've done, an 80# bow seems to be on the lower end of the scale for adult longbows. Even in the 1100's (if that's when we're assuming robin hood lived) a heavy bow was the norm. Even the bows that came out of the viking age and around that period were estimated to be above 80#. At the time, the English were being assaulted from every side. The Scots and the Irish were routinely raiding into English territory, and other foreign parties were beginning to attack as well. Fully trained knights were in short supply. Almost every peasant man, however, could shoot a bow proficiently. As I said above, they had started from childhood and shot to the point where it was truly instinctive shooting.
And on the subject of length: Yes, it's true that these bows are very long. A warbow benefits from the thinner, longer design that was implemented at the time. I'll put it this way: I'm the most klutzy person in the woods, and I can still get around with a 74" bow without any trouble.
In short, I still firmly believe that the warbow would be the weapon of choice for our "Robin Hood" figure. I know that if I was a medieval archer, I would take the armor-defeating capability that came with the heavier bow. Short and light bows are wonderful when you're stalking deer, but when an army is charging down the hill at you, determined to kill you and everyone around you, I personally feel that I would be much more confident with a 120# longbow and steel bodkins than a 55# hunting bow.
Like I said, I really don't mean any disrespect at all. I just thought I'd throw my opinion (for all that it's worth) into the ring.
