I must disagree with claims that "Algebraic Number Theory" is an algebraic study of anything-whatsoever, possibly including number theory, or, possibly "numbers", whatever the reference may be.
That is, in genuine practice, it is "the theory of algebraic numbers", including "algebraic integers", including $p$-adic methods, including complex variables methods, including harmonic analysis methods, including Galois theory, including rudimentary commutative algebra, ...
E.g., there is (to my knowledge) no "purely algebraic" proof of the analytic continuation and functional equation of zeta functions of number fields, of Hecke L-functions thereof, nor even of Dirichlet's Units Theorem and finiteness of class number... in part because these are not "purely algebraic" facts, because they hold for rings of algebraic integers (and the function field analogues), not for general Dedekind domains.
True, the fact that a little commutative algebra and a little field theory enter might cause some to think that "this is algebra", just as the entrance of some complex analysis induces some to say "it's analytic number theory", but these are essentially irrelevant ways of appraising the situation, and, also, of parsing the names of things.